Antietam OOB

[Hancock the Superb]

The Gettysburg June 30th OOB included in the SDK, which all the other OOB's are based off of, is as historically accurate, as every major researcher on the battle of Gettysburg has written up the exact same one. The artillery battalions are correct, the brigades and regiments are correct, the reserve artillery and cavalry are correct. The Major General NO BODY is because the game engine needs a placeholder commander in that slot. The only thing that may be wrong is the # of troops or guns, but as I said above, that will forever be debated.

If you are in need of a more historical oob, there are many sources which you can use to create one. It merely takes a little time to learn how to create an oob and money to do the research, and viola, you have the oob you wish to have.

[rclark14]

Hi, it is in the Antietam/Sharpsburg pack- great battle should have Longstreet's pic in place- thanks and take care :cheer:

[RebBugler]

Hi, it is in the Antietam/Sharpsburg pack- great battle should have Longstreet's pic in place- thanks and take care :cheer:

Checked out this prob and it's Bugles and Flags. I'll get it fixed in the next version, apologies for that oversight...and glad you're a B&F fan

[rclark14]

Hi, sorry to complain- the pics make this game much better- I am indeed B&F fan- love your mod work- take care

[Saddletank]

The Gettysburg June 30th OOB included in the SDK, which all the other OOB's are based off of, is as historically accurate, as every major researcher on the battle of Gettysburg has written up the exact same one. The artillery battalions are correct, the brigades and regiments are correct, the reserve artillery and cavalry are correct. The Major General NO BODY is because the game engine needs a placeholder commander in that slot. The only thing that may be wrong is the # of troops or guns, but as I said above, that will forever be debated.

If you are in need of a more historical oob, there are many sources which you can use to create one. It merely takes a little time to learn how to create an oob and money to do the research, and viola, you have the oob you wish to have.

I think its the SoW:Antietam OOB that's being criticised. I didn't see any complaints about the Getysburg one.

[Blaugrana]

Hancock, Surely you do not suggest that the Gettysburg OOB is historical. It is not. [...] 1/2 of the Confederate artillery structure was simpley wrong, and done so intentionally.

You missed the above, Saddletank

[MarkT]

Hancock,
You are wrong. :laugh: You are also misunderstanding the term OOB and my meaning..
"Order of Battle"
The team did a great job of finding data.
The team did a great job of guessing at data too.
The team had to interperet a lot of information and take some wild quesses at obscure things such as moral, fatique, weapons, strengths. NONE of this is in question. :blink:

What is in question is the "Organization" in BOTH Antietam and Gettysburg. This is NOT a matter of historical diferences in sources. Let me repeat that. This is NOT a matter of historical diferences in sources.. This is a matter of a person creating the OOB and NOT putting the troops in the correct organizations. Saddletank noticed this and has no problem due to his playability requirements. I respect that.

As far as you taking the time to tell me about learning all of this complicated OOB stuff, I apreciate the effort of your post and suggest you revisit the GB OOB and really look at them.

I created my first complete OOB, scenarios, and game on Gettesburg and Antietam in 1972. My sources are all the same now as they were then and they are all the same as the team used.
Before you start preaching about what the Team did, please understand I was ON THE TEAM! :ohmy:
As of this date I have written hundreds of OOBs and tens of thousands of scenarios. I don't need to learn how to do it.

This is not a codemnation of the Team or especially your loyalty to the game. This is simply to have them create the most accurate OOB possible. This is a great game system. We all want to keep it so.

To you as a poster, I have ALWAYS enjoyed your posts and your enthusiasm. Keep it up.

[NY Cavalry]

Hancock just look at the credits for SWG. You must have missed the connection.


1972? That must make you about 100 years old. Just kidding. Your scenarios are good work. For relaxation I will play the Hood's Division day 2; for some reason that one is my favorite. Rhodes comes in 2nd.



A yank playing rebs.

[Olszowy]

Hmmmm, accepting constructive critiscm is always good, defending mistakes that could easily be corrected is another matter. Quite frankly it sounds like an excuse for simple mistake and you missed my point entirely. If you are going to call something "historical" expect someone to call you on your source when you claim it is "historical". I am well aware of the excessive and quite frankly questionable "common knowledge" of Gettysburg. The perverted fascination with Gburg is why most student have no clue what Shiloh or Chicamauga was or is located.
US III Corps units are a prime example, but you could use most of the AoP OOB. Why are Union quality rankings so low? Why is most of Ward's division militia? I'd like to see you go back in time and call the 124th or 86th NY merely militia. Was it historical playability? Someone wanted to ensure the proper outcome on the simulation so we lower the troop and officer quality to ensure we maintain the innaccuracy mythconception that Ward's troops ran. In the OOB XI and I Corps many guns are equal or less quality than the CSA guns historically on Benner Hill, yet the CSA guns lost the fight badly, so what historical playability was in force with that call of the OOB? Yes, I wrote my own OOB and I do my own research, I just expected better answers or for people to fix errors and not hide behind defenses and smugly refer to questions as "graduate work".
Much like the elevation issues across the maps and yes I am picky as I work with geospatial products and wish I had the tools to build maps. Antietam maps are great, but it is not that flat!!!
Do not attack people asking legitimate questions of sourcing and decisions because you do not want to hear it.

[MarkT]

Olszowy,
That about sums it up. Even if "playability" issues have to be met, A historical OOB should be presented. Personal interperatations have no place in a product that can boast the detail and sofistication this system offers. As far as Statistics on different units go, a 0-9 scale is too wide a range to rate units.
Stannard was far better than being rated a "0" for Green. The 11th Corps was not bad, it was just unlucky. All units should be rated 4 with variations of + or - 2. Because each battle is different. Let the player beat an equal, not an inferior unit.

As far as maps go, yes they are flat. simply tracing a USGS quad map is not enough. They are a good source, but the high and low areas need to be correctly interpeted. The low spots can be as much as 19.9 feet off. you can drive a truck through that. I have walked the field at Antietam and Gettysburg MANY times. The game makes them look like similar battlefields. They are NIGHT and DAY.
But there is evolution here. The more you understand the better you get. If you do not listen and realize error, you do not learn.

Matt, As far as playability over historical, I realize in certain scenarios, you have to break the OOB apart to make it playable. But that does not justify blatant ommisions. You and I have discussed this many times.... And we agree in many things....

NY Cavalry,
I was in error, it was 1968. Being over 100 does have its issues. :laugh:
This is not a part time hobby. Since i was thirteen, I have fought these issues, played the games, and aquired knowledge and books to back it up. A week does ot go by that I do not play, research, or create a game. I am published, and can back my arguments up. I also can spot someone blowing smoke a mile away.
BUT, I do not know everything, I am not afraid to say I am wrong, and I will always look it up to verify. And when I find I was misled, I can be a pain in the butt to get it corrected. Ask my poor ex-team mates at Norbsoft.

Scenarios:
Rodes is one of the best. Hood is fun. Playing Sickles vs. Lonstreet day two is also a challenge.
I play on Corps and army level mostly. The five mile maps and RANDOM placements of multiplayer corps is great. Maneuvering to find friend and foe is what the campaign was about.

And furthermore, my spelling sucks.... :laugh: